11:23 – Kelly Shackelford, head of the Liberty Institute/Free Market Foundation, the Texas affiliate of the far-right Focus on the Family, is up. Shackelford argues that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution. Neither, we might say, is “fair trial,” “separation of powers” “checks and balances” and other basic constitutional principles. Shackelford thinks “separation of church” is being used to “abuse” the freedom of students. He wants students to contrast the intent of the Founders (or what he believes was the intent of the Founders) who wrote the Constitution with the phrase “separation of church and state.”
11:32 – Board member David Bradley calls separation of church and state a “myth.” He notes that the Ten Commandments adorn federal buildings like the Supreme Court.
11:34 – Shackelford: There are people who want to engage in a “religious cleansing” in this country. He argues that students are being punished for expressing their faith in public schools.
11:37 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar: “tremendous confusion” about how the First Amendment should be implemented in relation to religious freedom. It’s hard to disagree — people like Dunbar and Shackelford have worked hard make it confusing.
11:39 – Board member Barbara Cargill: students used to be taught correctly about the First Amendment’s protection for religious freedom (meaning that they weren’t taught about separation of church and state).
11:46 – Rick Green, a motivational speaker for David Barton’s WallBuilders who lost a bid for the Republican nomination for a state Supreme Court seat this spring, was supposed to be next. A speaker named Jason Moore is up instead. Moore is arguing about the importance of promoting “American exceptionalism.” He claims that university professors earlier this year were testifying before the board in favor of socialism as the preferred “form of government” for America. Ummm… Jason, who? He offers no names, of course. We certainly remember no university professors making such statements.
11:57 – Regarding separation of church and state and religious freedom, we think these words from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in a 2005 church-state case are appropriate: “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” One recalls that Justice O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan.
12:22 – Board members were permitted to invite one speaker each to address the board early in the hearing. Invited testifiers are now done. Nearly 200 other speakers are on the list of testifiers. We find it hard to imagine that the board will hear from them all before breaking tonight. The board is about to break for a short lunch.
12:28 – Just broke for lunch. Now we’re off to the “Don’t White-Out Our History” rally!
10 thoughts on “Live-Blogging the Social Studies Hearing II”
Sigh. “Misnomer” at worst; not “myth”.
Is anyone sane going to present?
‘Board member David Bradley calls separation of church and state a “myth.” He notes that the Ten Commandments adorn federal buildings like the Supreme Court.’
The Supreme Court also features a frieze of Mohammed. What should we make of that?
See some of Jason Moore’s questionable logic on this thread:
Would you please site for me the place in the Constitution where it uses the phrase “seperation of church and state” As you quoted?
People usually use Amendment 1, but here is what it actually says…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That was to keep government out of folks religious business, not make them the police over it. See that place where it says “Make no law”?
The American taliban in action. God save us.
Of the ten commandments, only four (murder, theft, perjury, and adultry) are embodied in current law. The rest are either unconstitutional or irrevelant. Even where adultry is against the law, it is almost never enforced. So that leaves us with 30% of the ten commandments currently being followed by the various juristictions in the US. I think the number 30 compares closely with the IQ of those who insist the US is based on the ten commandments. That is also just in the laws. Comparison to the US Constitution is zero! I won’t even get into the idea that the Code of Hammurabi is antecedent.
A light just went on. I believe that I follow what you are saying. The First Amendment was designed to keep the government from meddling in the activities of our churches. However, it is okay for members of those churches to take over the government, make Christian Neo-Fundamentalism the official national religion of the United States, change the nation’s laws to conform with it, and thereby make a second class citizen out of any United Methodist, Catholic, Northern Baptist, or Jew who refuses to accept the newly dominant government religious sect. Thanks Rich. How could I have been so stupid to go all of these years and not recognize the truth of your assessment?
Rich, if you have any examples of how the government is “policing” religion in a way that is outside the bounds of the First Amendment, please provide them.
The truth shall set you free. The religious right sponsors legislation that inevitably leads to the further dumbing down of this country. My kids in a public school in Texas or Kansas…? not a chance.